NASA announces lunar base plan

[RestoreGore]

NASA announces lunar base plan

Dec. 4, 2006
Courtesy NASA
and World Science staff

NASA an­nounced plans today to build a per­ma­nent base on the moon by 2024.

“With such an out­post, NASA can learn to use the moon’s nat­u­ral re­sources to live off the land, make prepa­ra­tions for a jour­ney to Mars, con­duct a wide range of sci­en­tif­ic in­ves­ti­ga­tions and en­cour­age in­ter­na­tion­al par­tic­i­pa­tion,” the agen­cy said in a state­ment.


Artist's concept of a lunar base. (Courtesy NASA)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agen­cy an­nounced the plan as it un­veiled el­e­ments of an in­ter­na­tion­al proj­ect to re­turn hu­mans to the moon, known as the Glob­al Ex­plo­ra­tion Strat­e­gy.“This strat­e­gy will en­a­ble in­terested na­tions to lev­er­age their ca­pa­bil­i­ties and fi­nan­cial and tech­ni­cal con­tri­bu­tions,” said NASA Dep­u­ty Ad­min­is­tra­tor Shana Dale, who is guid­ing the ef­fort among 14 space agen­cies.

NASA be­gan de­vel­op­ing the strat­e­gy last April in or­der to meet a con­gres­sion­al man­date, as well as to ac­com­plish goals out­lined in its stra­te­gic plan.The strat­e­gy is evolv­ing from a di­a­logue among more than 1,000 ex­perts, in­clud­ing space agen­cy per­son­nel, non-governmental or­ga­ni­za­tions and com­mer­cial in­terests, ac­cord­ing to NASA of­fi­cials.

NASA plan­ners used the in­ter­na­tion­al group’s de­lib­er­a­tions as well as in­put from ac­a­dem­ia, pri­vate sec­tor and pri­vate cit­i­zens as the ba­sis for sketch­ing a U.S. blue­print for a re­turn to the moon.This “has re­sulted in an un­der­stand­ing of what is re­quired to im­ple­ment and en­a­ble crit­i­cal ex­plo­ra­tion ob­jec­tives,” said Doug Cooke, dep­u­ty as­so­ci­ate ad­min­is­tra­tor of NASA’s Ex­plo­ra­tion Sys­tems Di­rec­to­rate.

skip

As cur­rent­ly en­vi­sioned, an in­cre­men­tal build­up of the base would beg­in with four-person crews mak­ing sev­er­al seven-day vis­its to the moon un­til their pow­er sup­plies, rovers and liv­ing quar­ters are op­er­a­tional, Cooke said. The first mis­sion would beg­in by 2020, to be fol­lowed by 180-day mis­sions to pre­pare for jour­neys to Mars.


http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061204_lunar-base.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is there oil on the moon? ;-) Hmm, to begin by 2020? That's unless global warming or nuclear war get us first, right?

[shain from kane]

1. NASA announces looney base plan. Yosemite Sam in charge? New

job for Bolton, United Planets ambassador.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

2. The Bush Twins really screwed up that Paraguay land deal, huh?

[HereSince1628]

3. Right. We'll scratch the moon base to pay-off the Bush war debt.

The only way we'll get one is if Newt is elected president. He'll want a place for interrogations of all those dangerous users of their 1st amendment rights. And he'll want that outside the jurisdiction of terrestrial courts.

Maybe he'll call it moonbase GOTMO.

[RestoreGore]

5. I think it is definitely related to their "new" space policy

http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf

Freedom of power in space is just as important to land and sea power to our profiteers. I wonder how Russia has reacted to this news?

[leveymg]

4. Sure. And, what are they going use to pay for this?

Moon rocks?

Moon oil?

Moon maidens?

[shain from kane]

6. "...to use the moon’s nat­u­ral re­sources to live off the land..."

Not exactly where the deer and the antelope play. The next frontier is not "Home on the Range". Everything, including food, will have to be packed and sent to the new territory by wagon train. A very expensive wagon train.

[leveymg]

7. Maybe they'll recycle the Bologna

This is funny, coming as it does now, right after we acknowledge that we lost another war.

[confludemocrat]

8. Gotta keep funneling bucks to Lockheed Martin since Iraq gravy train will end

and the thought of future big military fuckups and it's attendant spending will make the "vietnam syndrome" seem like nothing, so less for halliburton bechtel, perini and othe big Repub war profitting contributors

[Phoonzang]

9. Is this the SCIENCE forum?

Maybe we need a separate forum where people who are actually interested in space exploration can talk about it seriously.

[RestoreGore]

10. Who is stopping you? n/t

[Phoonzang]

11. More like what is stopping me...

The utter lack of interest shown in the topic. It's being treated like a joke...you'd think NASA announced that they plan to lasso the moon and mine it for green cheese.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. It is a joke.

Is there any actual science being accomplished on with this (I'm going to have to assume phony) mission? Is it going to do any science that can't be done far better with robotics?

[Phoonzang]

13. How about expanding..

Human civilization beyond the Earth? We can't keep all our eggs in one basket or something's going to crush the basket one day. Off the top of my head I can think of at least two other really good reasons to establish a base on the moon: Helium-3 and a radio telescope on the far side of moon. And why do you assume the mission is phony? We went to the moon 40 years ago and it's about time we went back. To stay.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. That'd be great, but it's not science.

Do the science first. Then figure out what to do with civilization. Do you really think this has anything to do with spreading civilization?

"Helium-3"

You mean for fusion, right? Too bad about all the cuts to fusion research.

"radio telescope on the far side of moon."

Sounds like a great idea. Get robots to start right on that. Too bad this has nothing to do with building a radio telescope on the far side of the moon.

"And why do you assume the mission is phony? We went to the moon 40 years ago and it's about time we went back."

Because Bush floated a similarly phony trial balloon about going to mars a couple of years back. Yeah, we went to the moon 37 years ago, that was phony too. Motivated by politics, not science. If it weren't for the Soviets we wouldn't have gone at all.

[Occulus]

17. EVENTUALLY!

Jesus Christ.

:rant:

What- do you expect a major leap and bound forward from every single project? What if NASA wants to do this just to prove it can be done? Kind of like climbing the mountain because it is there.

Eventually, what we learn from a lunar colony, however large, will be applied to a martian colony, however large. We're going to do these things, probably in the next century. Eventually, we'll use what we learn on the moon to move outward to the asteroids, perhaps one of Jupiter's moons, and so forth. All we need is a way to get there, and I think we'll see that in the next century as well. Anyone claiming "political motives", while entitled to their opinion, just aren't seeing the big picture, and just aren't looking far enough forward in time.

I just can't understand your scorn for this project. This is the next step; the first was getting into space in the first place, and then proving we can stay there for an extended time. Now we need to figure out how to stay there longer, live there, and move around space in our system. This is the future, and NASA's looking at it with an eye to achieving a true milestone.

While we're out there-in our ships- getting rich mining asteroids and discovering God knows what about them, we'll be laughing at you. Robotics are a poor, prohibitively limited answer for real human presence. Robots, for one thing, don't experience the thrill of being there- and that's enough all by itself to propel humans to the goal. You should know this, and I think you actually do.

Basically, either cheer them on, help them out, or get out of the way. This will happen, and some of us happen to enjoy both that prospect and the fact that it pisses some people off.

:rant:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Well, if you want to get their eventually...

you're not going to do it with ridiculous boondoggles like this.

"Robots, for one thing, don't experience the thrill of being there-"

Yes, and that's exactly the sort of bullshit I'm talking about. Nobody actually cares about the science. They just want to dress up in their Star Fleet uniform and watch the moon landing on their TV. Ooo! How thrilling.

:eyes:

"While we're out there-in our ships- getting rich mining asteroids and discovering God knows what about them, we'll be laughing at you."

Yeah, good luck with that.

:rofl:

"Basically, either cheer them on, help them out, or get out of the way."

No, you can support REAL science, or get out of the way. God, think of all the real science you could support with a boondoggle like this...

[Occulus]

25. Real science. Okay.

Except that I'm not talking about doing science, but about proving we can live and work offplanet, and maybe someday bring a benefit back to the people on Earth. None of this is about 'doing science'. This is about the baby steps toward being able to leave Earth. This is something we desperately need to develop as a viable option. Recent events have shown that we could easily destroy our planet in the blink of an eye. A rock could fall from the sky and kill everything. The Yellowstone supervolcano could erupt, killing absolutely everything in a 600 mile radius and plunging the rest of the planet into something like nuclear winter. The climate could irrecovably collapse. And on and on and on.

BUT-

For the very first time in human history, we can seriously consider the possibility of colonizing another stellar body- however small or dangerous that may be. This is not about doing science, but about expansion, about saving the human race from possible eventual extinction. By the time we know and recognize a valid threat to our species as a whole, it will likely be too late.

Why do you not understand that?

[qazplm]

30. wow

real science is studying the effect of extended weightlessness on the human body. real science is studying how or if it is even feasible to live on another planetary body "off the land" for any period of time. What are the challenges, what are the things that are easier and unexpected? If we can learn how to live off the moon, we can certainly learn how to live off of Mars, and at least while learning on the moon we are only a few days away if problems arise as opposed to many months.

And yes we can also build a telescope, we can mine He-3 for when we DO figure out fusion, and we can even see the feasibility of a mass driver, about 500 other things that neither you nor I are smart enough to think of.

Previous manned space exploration has led to a TON of other "real science" as well by the way.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. ...

"real science is studying the effect of extended weightlessness on the human body."

Yes. And that's the "science" they've been doing in low earth orbit now for forty years. Problem is, the "science" they've been doing on these shuttle missions are a joke. They're using science as an excuse to keep dumping money into that boondoggle. Look at John Glenn's mission, they said he was there for a science mission but he didn't even qualify as a test subject.

"if it is even feasible to live on another planetary body "off the land" for any period of time."

And do you really think that's what this mission's about? Is there anything they can study that a robot can't do better?

"And yes we can also build a telescope, we can mine He-3 for when we DO figure out fusion, and we can even see the feasibility of a mass driver, about 500 other things that neither you nor I are smart enough to think of."

Why on earth (no pun intended), would you want to put the cart in front of the horse?

"Previous manned space exploration has led to a TON of other "real science" as well by the way."

Such as?

[qazplm]

35. What?

1. Living on a planet is quite different from living on a space station in low earth orbit. And we are going to have to learn to do it sooner or later.

2. I am sure that is absolutely part of what this mission is about. Being cynical is fine, but you've taken out past the red line.

3. I have no idea what your response is supposed to mean, but you certainly appear to have no rebuttal to all of the things we can learn and do with a perm moon base and

4. you dont know what real science manned space exploration has led to, are you serious? Do some research, I'm not going to do it for you. However ares like computers, lasers, medicine, communications, safety systems, food storage, environmental systems, and biology are just a few you can start looking at.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. I'm asking for real examples.

"computers, lasers, medicine, etc." doesn't answer my question.

These are things invented prior to space research and independent from it.

If you decide to build a tunnel to China, we'll probably invent some new technology along the way, but you would have done the same thing if you had just spent the money on inventing new technology, instead of something wasteful, like a tunnel to China.

"Living on a planet is quite different from living on a space station in low earth orbit."

A permanent base on the moon is rather similar to a space station in low earth orbit, except there's a bit of gravity, a whole lot of rocks, and a much bigger bill.

Look at the space station as a perfect example of a boondoggle. What's come of that? Nothing. For the price of that thing and these useless shuttle missions and this proposed moon base, you could have a dozen JWSTs, legions of Mars Rovers style robots rolling all over the moon, Mars, Europa, etc. deep space probes, who knows?

"I have no idea what your response is supposed to mean, but you certainly appear to have no rebuttal to all of the things we can learn and do with a perm moon base"

You tell me what we can learn from a perm moon base? If you're going to propose a project like this you've got to have clear goals as to what you intend to learn. What are they?

[Odin2005]

23. Good point on asteroid mining.

There is so much material in the Asteroid Melt that it boggles the imagination. One iron asteroid put in Geo-Synch orbit near a space elevator would make most mining on the surface obsolete. A carbonaceous asteroid would supply carbon for plastics in a post-fossil fuel economy.

[Occulus]

24. The raw materials in the asteroid belt are likely staggering.

It's my understanding that there are asteroids out there so metallic they shine. Some of these rocks are very big. There's no reason we couldn't use a robot craft with a solar sail (Hellllooooo, BornAgainHooligan? I'm talking to you here) to tow one of these into geosynchronous orbit for us to mine. Hell, if it catches as an industry, we very well may see manned mining missions into the belt, just to see what's there for ourselves.

If there are any carbonaceous asteroids out there, well, we need to be working on this now. Time is running out.

[Esra Star]

40. Sorry, what's the point of "geosynchronous" ? n/t

[FogerRox]

33. He-3.... one word.... Bussard

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Bussard?

The guy who's become a hero recently in the woo woo community because of some of his fusion work? The fusion work that had nothing to do with He-3? That Bussard?

Not to detract from the actual Bussard, it appears they're trying to turn him into the new Tesla.

[Posteritatis]

39. I'd assume the OP's talking about ramscoops. (n/t)

[RestoreGore]

26. Well, I can see your point n/t

[Odin2005]

14. Methinks the luddites who think all scince is a corporatist conspiracy need thier own forum...

[leveymg]

16. The $$$ spent on this would be better applied to R&D on alternatives

to hydrocarbon fuels. That way we might be able to preserve the little blue marble and our place on it.

That's not Luddite logic.

[Occulus]

18. There's no reason we can't do both.

THOSE people want us to not do it. At all. Period.

We shouldn't respect that point of view. There's no progress at all in inaction.

[leveymg]

20. I support continued manned missions in earth orbit

Beyond that, robotics do it better, safer, and a lot cheaper.

If there's some good reason to send people "out there", such as to meet someone face to tentacle, then that's a different matter.

But, what's the point of going back to the moon with 1970s rockets? There's really nothing significant there, or anything really big to learn by doing it again.

From a purely scientific standpoint, there are many much more significant space-based missions that the money could go to. If someone wants to place a giant radio telescope on the far side of the moon, fine. But, the technical advances would be greater if we tried to do it with robotics.

[Odin2005]

22. It's called preparing for colonization.

If we want to colonize, say, Mars, people need to learn how to live on Mars, you need manned missions for that.

[bananas]

27. Stephen Hawking: Leave Earth or die!

<snip>

Stephen Hawking has called for a new diaspora, telling a Hong Kong press conference that humanity must leave Earth and colonise the rest of the solar system if it is to avoid extinction.

The respected physicist warned of the increasing risk that some kind of natural or man made disaster - such as global warming, or a nuclear war - could destroy the Earth: "It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," he said.


He believes we could have a colony on the moon within 20 years, and an established base on Mars within 40, according to reports, but says that unless we travel to another star system, we "won't find anywhere as nice as Earth".

<snip>

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/14/hawkings_leave_earth

[leveymg]

28. When we locate a suitable planet for colonization, (where we don't

have to kill the present occupants), and have developed a feasible way of getting a large enough group of people there (alive), then we can talk about it.

[Occulus]

29. If we don't talk about it, that won't happen at all n/t

[Posteritatis]

38. Yeah, who needs stuff like "planning"? (n/t)

[qazplm]

31. just plain wrong

there are dozens of things we can learn from a "purely scientific standpoint". Heck probably a dozen significant ones have already been listed in this thread alone.

[Occulus]

34. There are a couple people here-

usual suspects, all- who, disappointingly predictably, rain on the parade. It doesn't matter what topic it is; these people disagree, vociferously, JUST to disagree. They never- as evidenced by someone I replied to above- inject intelligent comments or positive debate on the topic at hand; rather, they almost always tend to "call someone out", or act as a naysayer. Normally, as evidenced by this very thread, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and serve only to enflame the current discussion and veer it off-topic into a he-said she-said I'm-defending you're-attacking flamefest.

:D

We all know who these usual uspects are. It's really best to avoid feeding them and their comments. I know, I know... I'm guilty of it above. But sometimes, when they're THAT dumb... it's hard to resist.

[Odin2005]

21. Exactly.